Case: 25-40270 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-40270 FILED Summary Calendar November 12, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Armando Jose Flores, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-707-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Armando Jose Flores, Jr. challenges his within-Guidelines 121- months’ sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting receipt), (b)(1) (setting penalty), 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (defining conduct).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-40270 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2025

No. 25-40270

Flores contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

To support his substantive-unreasonableness challenge, Flores asserts the court did not consider his psychological-sexual-risk evaluation, which he provided. A within-Guidelines sentence, as in this instance, is presumptively reasonable. E.g., United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 2013). Review of the record shows the court considered all relevant evidence—including the psychological-sexual-risk evaluation. The evaluation concluded he: showed no current-dangerous-sexual attitudes toward others; and appeared to provide genuine responses. On the other hand, the evaluation concluded he: did not understand why child pornography is wrong; and needs years of sexual behavioral treatment to potentially develop empathy and remorse. Accordingly, Flores fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness by showing, inter alia, that “the sentence . . . represents a clear error of judgment in balancing [the] sentencing factors”. Id. (citation omitted). There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.